Radio West And Dan McClellan Discuss The 10 Commandments

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Dan McClellan is on Radio West once again. This time Dan discusses the 10 Commandments and how we misinterpret and misunderstand them. It's very interesting and I would recommend listening while you're exercising or driving to/from work.

Some interesting tidbits: the commandment to "not take the Lord's name in vain" has nothing whatsoever to do with swearing. The commandment to "not steal" might very well mean thou shall not kidnap. And the commandment "to not have any gods before me" actually comes with a curse from God on the offender's offspring for 4 generations.

Here you go:

https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowe ... mmandments

[Gadianton]

What I'm curious about -- does the other Dan believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in every classroom in every school?

I'm curious, meaning, I have no idea what the answer is. He would surprise me either way.

[huckelberry]

What I'm curious about -- does the other Dan believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in every classroom in every school?

I'm curious, meaning, I have no idea what the answer is. He would surprise me either way.

Gadianton, Dan only ends with the observation that he does not think it is a good idea but expresses strong views leading to that conclusion.
He thinks the project is concerned with who maintains power. He repeats an observation he likes, "to those who are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression." There are a series of focal points chosen by maga to focus this feeling upon, insisting on posting ten commandments is another such device. Our society has no need for such posting.

Most of the discussion is about the historic development of these commandments and the process of interpreting them.

[huckelberry]

In general I am sympathetic to Dan's view about posting the ten commandments. He has valuable information about the actual Bible ten commandments, context and history. I share his negative view of Trump and maga. I did at the same time find his presentation curiously one side in ways that caused me a bit of reflection. A presentation is time limited of course so can only focus on a selection of possible considerations while other points might not get included.

Dan observes that basic moral principals such as don't lie, steal, murder, or harm are taught at home by family and the state schools should not be needed. The ten commandments have a mixture of religious proposals along with the moral rules making its place in public schools problematic. I do not see why a different presentation of basic moral rules should not have a place in schools. Our legal system is part of those rules, society's expectations are certainly part of why you should not lie, steal, or kill. It is not just a family affair. I can agree that family has more power and influence for those attitudes in people than school teachers. I think both have a role.

Dan's presentation centers upon the analysis of text with the questions about whose power and purposes are being reflected in how the story is being told and what it contains. I can see that that may highlight important observations and help clarify some things as convoluted as the history and meanings of Old Testament texts. That analysis might skip over other broader meanings in the text. I find this illustrated by Dan a curious take on the movie Ten Commandments which he thinks is produced and enjoyed by people to assert a specific power and privilege structure. After asserting this piece of postmodern dogma, he admits he has not actually seen the movie. I would not say there is nothing in his assumption but it does miss some important things actually in the movie. It make a strong presentation of the contrast between the hope of freedom and the bondage of slavery. Yes there are obvious political implications in that message, but in the 50s and 60s that was not about some divide inside America but an expression of American hope against fascist communist forces in opposition. The movie is not about maintaining privilege.

I am pretty left, yet that does not mean I can never recognize value in some conservative views. One I see is that freedom does require some basic order in society. People fearing an increase in disorder are not merely fearing loss of privilege. People low on the privilege scale may find conservative views attractive hoping to maintain basic order. A person on the edge of maintaining has a closer sense of danger than financially well situated folks may have and may see some security in representation of the ten commandments.

Yay, yah, people on the left all know about the necessity of basic social order. I think they get too lazy in political speech and concentrate on attacking conservatives accusing them of being concerned only with privilege. Conservatives get offended and communication breaks down.

[huckelberry]

Dan observes that basic moral principals such as don't lie, steal, murder, or harm are taught at home by family and the state schools should not be needed. The ten commandments have a mixture of religious proposals along with the moral rules making its place in public schools problematic. I do not see why a different presentation of basic moral rules should not have a place in schools. Our legal system is part of those rules, society's expectations are certainly part of why you should not lie, steal, or kill. It is not just a family affair. I can agree that family has more power and influence for those attitudes in people than school teachers. I think both have a role.

I find myself wondering about this observation. Is it possible to produce an updated version of the ten commandments which would not contain the specific religious instructions? The general moral proposals are as good now as in times past. People do need reminding or perhaps could use reminding. The question would be how to phrase the proposal that not only is lying against the rules but you should not do it. The ten commandments starts by placing a person before their creator and the creator stating obligation in the relationship. In the Bible versions this of course is a particular faith, concept, name, and ritual. I was thinking that just the proposal god can be both broad enough and abstract enough that it could be meaningful across the wide spectrum of people's beliefs. It does not require specific names, images, or rituals which different religions apply. An abstraction of the idea can be appreciated by atheists as well as followers of a religion.

Is there a way to refer to the basic obligation people have to everything and everybody which contributes to making a person's life possible? An atheist may recognize as well as the religious that there is an obligation to others implied by having received life from others and continues in cooperation with others. All people should recognize there should be respect for the nature which makes our life possible. A ten commandments for everybody or anybody could start by referencing that obligation in some way.

[sock puppet]

Dan observes that basic moral principals such as don't lie, steal, murder, or harm are taught at home by family and the state schools should not be needed. The ten commandments have a mixture of religious proposals along with the moral rules making its place in public schools problematic. I do not see why a different presentation of basic moral rules should not have a place in schools. Our legal system is part of those rules, society's expectations are certainly part of why you should not lie, steal, or kill. It is not just a family affair. I can agree that family has more power and influence for those attitudes in people than school teachers. I think both have a role.

I find myself wondering about this observation. Is it possible to produce an updated version of the ten commandments which would not contain the specific religious instructions? The general moral proposals are as good now as in times past. People do need reminding or perhaps could use reminding. The question would be how to phrase the proposal that not only is lying against the rules but you should not do it. The ten commandments starts by placing a person before their creator and the creator stating obligation in the relationship. In the Bible versions this of course is a particular faith, concept, name, and ritual. I was thinking that just the proposal god can be both broad enough and abstract enough that it could be meaningful across the wide spectrum of people's beliefs. It does not require specific names, images, or rituals which different religions apply. An abstraction of the idea can be appreciated by atheists as well as followers of a religion.

Is there a way to refer to the basic obligation people have to everything and everybody which contributes to making a person's life possible? An atheist may recognize as well as the religious that there is an obligation to others implied by having received life from others and continues in cooperation with others. All people should recognize there should be respect for the nature which makes our life possible. A ten commandments for everybody or anybody could start by referencing that obligation in some way.

I am apatheistic (agnostic, but don't trifle my time away on an unanswerable question). I give that as context to my comments. I do not see why any "God" no matter how generic or watered down should be in public education. Teaching equality and empathy and why such are valuable ought to be the precursor to then teaching the 'should follow' parts of the laws against about not lying, stealing, or killing.

[huckelberry]

I am apatheistic (agnostic, but don't trifle my time away on an unanswerable question). I give that as context to my comments. I do not see why any "God" no matter how generic or watered down should be in public education. Teaching equality and empathy and why such are valuable ought to be the precursor to then teaching the 'should follow' parts of the laws against about not lying, stealing, or killing.

Sock Puppet, perhaps respect yourself could be rule one.

It was respect I was concerned with in thinking of the god category (I might be inclined to think the idea of god is stronger without people's dubious dogmas)

I remind myself that respect for oneself can be one-sided and become destructive if blind to others. It needs to be paired with respect the people around you in the same way. (back to, repeats, a Biblical summation of the commandments)

[sock puppet]

I am apatheistic (agnostic, but don't trifle my time away on an unanswerable question). I give that as context to my comments. I do not see why any "God" no matter how generic or watered down should be in public education. Teaching equality and empathy and why such are valuable ought to be the precursor to then teaching the 'should follow' parts of the laws against about not lying, stealing, or killing.

Sock Puppet, perhaps respect yourself could be rule one.

It was respect I was concerned with in thinking of the god category (I might be inclined to think the idea of god is stronger without people's dubious dogmas)

I remind myself that respect for oneself can be one-sided and become destructive if blind to others. It needs to be paired with respect the people around you in the same way. (back to, repeats, a Biblical summation of the commandments)

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself", which appears in the Bible in Matthew 22:38-39 and Leviticus 19:18. That presupposes loving oneself, but is not one of the 10 Commandments. It is dubbed as the 2nd GREAT Commandment. Is there anywhere in the four Gospels that Jesus commands/argues for the 10?

[huckelberry]

Sock Puppet, perhaps respect yourself could be rule one.

It was respect I was concerned with in thinking of the god category (I might be inclined to think the idea of god is stronger without people's dubious dogmas)

I remind myself that respect for oneself can be one-sided and become destructive if blind to others. It needs to be paired with respect the people around you in the same way. (back to, repeats, a Biblical summation of the commandments)

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself", which appears in the Bible in Matthew 22:38-39 and Leviticus 19:18. That presupposes loving oneself, but is not one of the 10 Commandments. It is dubbed as the 2nd GREAT Commandment. Is there anywhere in the four Gospels that Jesus commands/argues for the 10?

Luke 18 comes to mind:

"Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”
21And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”

Not all ten stated but clearly referencing the ten commandments.

My thought was wondering if and how a secular counterpart to the ten commandments could be put together and take a place in public schools. I suppose the ten commandments has the advantage of being genuinely old. I find myself reflecting from time to time on the relationship of a human being told to respect oneself reminding people of their inner sense of this obligation and the idea of being created by God who assigns us the obligation of respect for self and others.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I remember Louis Midgley once posted to the effect that without the 10 Commandments there would be no Western civilization. Louis made this comment shortly after posting the question, "Don't they worship monkeys in Hinduism?"

Not Louis Midgley's finest hour.